Obama’s Neville Chamberlain Speech

In his May 19 speech on the Middle East, President Obama, in a matter of minutes, abandoned Security Council Resolution 242, which for more than four decades had been the cornerstone of diplomacy in pursuit of Arab-Israeli peace; likewise abandoned the Roadmap, adopted in 2003 by the so-called Quartet (the U.S., UN, EU and Russia) as a blueprint for resolving, more specifically, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; committed his Administration to pushing Israel back to indefensible borders; and essentially adopted as Administration policy Mahmoud Abbas’s variation on Arafat’s “Plan of Phases” for Israel’s destruction.

The cumulative impact of Obama’s declarations is to chart a course for Israel comparable to that charted for Czechoslovakia in 1938 when Neville Chamberlain endorsed Hitler’s demands of that country.

“We believe,” declared the President, in just one of his statements undermining Israel, “the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines.”

Resolution 242, adopted unanimously by the Security Council a few months after the 1967 war, calls for establishment between Israel and its neighbors of “secure and recognized boundaries.” The resolution does not call for Israel to return to the pre-war armistice lines, and the resolution’s authors asserted that this omission was intentional, that those lines were an invitation to further aggression against Israel and the future borders ought to be elsewhere.

Lord Caradon, Britain’s ambassador to the UN at the time and the person who introduced Resolution 242 in the Security Council, told a Lebanese newspaper in 1974:

“It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places where the soldiers of each side happened to be on the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That’s why we didn’t demand that the Israelis return to them, and I think we were right not to…”

Lyndon Johnson, then President, stated that Israel’s retreat to its former lines would be “not a prescription for peace but for renewed hostilities”; and he advocated new “recognized boundaries” that would provide “security against terror, destruction, and war.”

Subsequent presidents have endorsed Israel’s need for “defensible borders,” and Prime Minister Netanyahu’s comments at the White House on May 20, to the effect that Israel is indefensible within the pre-1967 armistice lines and cannot return to those lines, are more consistent with traditional American policy than is Obama’s new stance. In addition, Congress has likewise backed Israel’s right to defensible borders. For example, an April, 2004, letter from the United States to Israel stipulating that the nation was not expected to return to the pre-1967 lines but, rather, was entitled to “defensible borders,” had the endorsement of a bipartisan consensus in both houses of Congress.

Israel’s vulnerability within the pre-1967 lines goes beyond its being reduced to a nine-mile width at its center, as mentioned by Netanyahu. Those boundaries also mean forces on the other side would control the hills that totally dominate Israel’s coastal plain, home to 70% of its people.

Despite this longstanding American support for new, defensible boundaries for Israel, and the obvious threats represented by the pre-1967 lines, there are some who insist on characterizing Netanyahu’s strong opposition to a return to those lines as reflecting his being “right-wing.” But Yitzhak Rabin, Labor prime minister in the first years of the Oslo process, articulated Netanyahu’s position in even stronger terms. In his last speech in the Knesset, shortly before his assassination in November, 1995, Rabin declared:

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.

And these are the main changes, not all of them, which we envision and want in the permanent solution:

A. First and foremost, united Jerusalem, which will include both Ma’ale Adumim and Givat Ze’ev — as the capital of Israel, under Israeli sovereignty, while preserving the rights of the members of the other faiths, Christianity and Islam, to freedom of access and freedom of worship in their holy places, according to the customs of their faiths.

B. The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.

C. Changes which will include the addition of Gush Etzion, Efrat, Beitar and other communities, most of which are in the area east of what was the ‘Green Line,’ prior to the Six Day War.

D. The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria…”

Obama, in promoting Israel’s retreat to the pre-1967 lines, did throw in the sop of a reference to “mutual agreed [territorial] swaps.” The meaninglessness of this with regard to Israel’s self-defense is illustrated by Obama’s reference in the preceding sentence to “permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt…” Here he dismisses the necessity of Israel retaining control of the Jordan Valley, without which hostile forces east of the Jordan would have easy access – whether for invasion or for smuggling arms – to those heights that, again, render the vast majority of Israelis ready prey for attack, both by regular forces and by terrorist rockets and mortars such as those that currently target Israeli communities near Gaza. Obama reinforced this element of his undermining Israel’s self-defense by calling as well for “the full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces,” rejecting even some limited Israeli military presence in the Jordan Valley.

On the territorial front, as if this were not enough of an assault on Israel, Obama threw in that the Palestinians have the right to – in keeping with Palestinian demands – a “contiguous” state. But there can be no contiguity between Gaza and the West Bank without splitting Israel in two, and the President had nothing to say about Israeli contiguity.

Beyond demanding suicidal territorial concessions from Israel, the President then insists that these concessions, and the accompanying “security arrangements” with the “non-militarized [Palestinian] state” – a largely meaningless, unenforceable flourish, as the Oslo experience dramatically demonstrated – should be spelled out in detail before two other key issues, “the future of Jerusalem” and “the fate of Palestinian refugees” are addressed. But, of course, the President has already defined the Administration’s stand on the future of Jerusalem in his call for Israel’s return to the pre-1967 armistice lines. And Israel is to surrender its essential bargaining chip, the extent of its territorial concessions, before the Palestinian demand for the so-called “right of return,” the plan to flood and overwhelm Israel with descendants of refugees from the 1947-48 war, is even addressed. Moreover, there is nothing in Obama’s speech calling for the Palestinians to give up this path to Israel’s dissolution.

The insistence on both pushing Israel back to the pre-1967 boundaries and establishing the territorial dimension of an agreement before other issues are addressed, as well as the President’s refraining from taking issue with the “right of return,” reflect his embracing demands made by the Palestinians while ignoring consideration of the untenable situation in which they place Israel.

The president’s agenda also entails an abandonment of the Roadmap. For example, in the Roadmap territorial issues only begin to be addressed in Phase II, and then only in terms of creating provisional borders and testing Palestinian intent and preparedness for statehood before there are any steps toward definition of permanent borders. On the other hand, in Phase I, indeed at its very outset, the “Palestinian leadership issues unequivocal statement reiterating Israel’s right to exist in peace and security and calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire to end armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere. All official Palestinian institutions end incitement against Israel.”

Obama does acknowledge as a problem that Israelis live “with the fear that their children could be blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes, as well as the pain of knowing that other children in the region are taught to hate them.” But he has little further to say about Palestinian terror – beyond the vague references to security arrangements – and nothing more to say about incitement. That Mahmoud Abbas’s Palestinian Authority uses its media, mosques and schools to indoctrinate Palestinians into believing that Jews have no historical or legal connection to the land but are mere usurpers whose presence must be extirpated; that those who massacre Israelis are heroes who must be emulated – a line of hate-indoctrination upon which Abbas himself seems particularly fond of elaborating; and that it is the obligation of Palestinian children to dedicate themselves to Israel’s destruction; are not, to our President, particularly troubling issues warranting immediate and focused attention.

With regard to Hamas, Obama does ask rhetorically, “How can one negotiate with a party unwilling to recognize your right to exist?” But Hamas is not simply a “rejectionist party” or a “terrorist entity” as designated by the United States. It is an explicitly genocidal organization, declaring in its charter its dedication to the murder of all Jews; and its leaders continually assert their fealty to their charter and their undying commitment to its program. Hamas’s incitement to the eradication of the Jews is a violation of Article 3 of the 1948 UN genocide convention; a violation which the contracting parties, including the United States, have undertaken to punish.

But some leaders of Hamas have also indicated that, to advance their ultimate goal, they are willing to pursue a temporary ceasefire and go along with negotiations aimed at getting Israel to withdraw to the pre-1967 lines. And President Obama has signaled that if they adopt and maintain this mask for some while, desisting from trumpeting their ultimate intent, he is prepared to ignore their genocidal agenda and join with them in pushing for an indefensible Israel.

Of course, Fatah is now forming a national unity government with Hamas, which, in addition to Abbas and the PA’s anti-Israel and anti-Jewish incitement, would presumably raise further questions about the PA’s reliability as a peace partner. So, too, one might imagine, would its ongoing promotion of the “Plan of Phases” for Israel’s destruction. But President Obama’s program, while violating Resolution 242 and the Roadmap, actually adheres to the agenda put forth by Arafat and Abbas to advance the “Plan of Phases.”

At the time of the initiation of the Oslo accords, on the evening of the famous signing and handshake on the White House lawn in September, 1993, Yasir Arafat appeared on Jordanian television and explained to his constituency and wider Arab audience that they should understand Oslo in terms of the Plan of Phases, formulated in 1974. The Plan called for the Palestine Liberation Organization to acquire whatever territory it could by negotiations, then use that land as a base from which it would pursue its ultimate objective of Israel’s destruction. Arafat repeated this understanding of Oslo many times thereafter.

Kenneth Levin is a psychiatrist and historian and author of "The Oslo Syndrome: Delusions of a People under Siege."

Joseph

Kenneth – you are so, so, so right on the money! May our Jewish people in the US and throughout the world wake up what is really happening!

http://apollospaeks.townhall.com ApolloSpeaks

!IS OBAMA NAIVE, OR INSANE?

Barack Obama may be Neville Chamberlain on crack cocaine trying to betray Israel like Chamberlain did Czechoslovakia 1938..But unlike that unfortunate country Israel has a Jewish Winston Churchill at its helm heading a powerful military machine armed to the teeth with nuclear bombs.

Click my name and read my piece Obama's AIPAK Speech, Is he Naive, or Insane?

Dennis X

SO you don't need US intervention, then where's the 3 billion ?

MixMChess

Where's the $500 million from the Palestinians? Where's the $2 billion from the Egyptians? Where's the billions we spend to protect the Saudis, Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan? Why are you only obsessed with Israel?

Dispozovdaburka

Obama knows exactly what he is doing.
Muslim Brotherhood is the core of his soul or lack thereof.

g_jochnowitz

In 1967, the Arab world rejected Resolution 242. Eight Arab countries met in Sudan and issued the Three No's of Khartoum: No peace with Israel. No recognition of Israel. No negotiations with Israel.
The Three No's led to the solidification of the policy of settlements in all parts of the West Bank and Gaza. Today, everyone has forgotten the Three No's–assuming they had ever heard of them in the first place.

Stephen_Brady

There can be no peace is the Middle East. If the Muslims didn't have to contend with Israel, anymore, they woud be going after us, and after each other. The problem is not Israel, and it's not the United States.

The problem is Islam …

ziontruth

Exactly. Those who cannot be trusted to restrain themselves in the face of few mediocre cartoons cannot be trusted with bigger things like peace treaties.

JCZ

The problam IS Islam, yiou are right. And we cannot address this before 'we fix stupid' . So c'mon 2012!

Perry B

NEVER – NEVER! – compare Barack Hussein Obama to Neville Chamberlain. Chamberlain did not INTEND for the consequences of his appeasing to occur.

Obama KNOWS exactly what he is doing.

Supreme_Galooty

"Beauty is only skin deep, but ugly goes all the way to the bone." – Obama's Mama

Just LOOKING at a picture of that example of human excreta turns my stomach. That he is actually the president of the United States is a fitting statement regarding the deplorable mental condition of the electorate. Is it any surprise that the Muslim in Chief sides with Hamas? God help Israel. God help the U.S. Both countries are in great peril.

Persuasive, depressing, and illuminating. Thank you for providing both the historical background and reading the subtext in the superficially reasonable text.

sandykramer

Obama knows about as much international geopolitics as Harold Camping knows about eschatology. But Obama does know his taquiyya.

B Gary

Why is there so much hatred, I mean demonic hatred toward Israel? Is it not because Jerusalem is whereYeshua said He would return to and stop the total destruction of the Jewish people by the hands of the surrounding Muslim nations? Satan knows this prophecy and is doing his best to destroy them to prevent this from happening! The Scripture Cannot be broken! He will return just as He said He would and defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem!
Maranatha!!!

Monty Lasovsky

What i find amazing is AIPACS agreement with Obama after his speech at the convention..
It boggles the mind that after the "Peace in our Time" statement from Obama that the consensus is that we should give the "mutually agreed" land swop's a chance. The Palestinians are laughing all the way to East Jerusalem, Samaria and Hebron and Gaza thinking that at last they will have their way.
With the Palestinians determination to destroy Israel and never to recognize it, how is it possible to negotiate with them? A non militariised Palestinian state will never be accepted by the Palestinians.
If anyone watched Obama's reception in Dublin last evening and the multitudes that were there to listen to him, one wonders how you defend against such rhetoric and popularism
in the case of little Israel trying to negotiate their own demise.
Trusting Obama, as the AIPAC meeting seemed to convey they do, will lead to the demise of Israel. I don't believe the Israelis are that naive as to accept at face value the AIPAC opinion in the belief that anyone can talk us into "assisted suicide" by bending over backwards to try and appease the most articulate president of all time. The American Red Indians summed up the presidents speech when they said, "White man speak with forked tongue" only in this case this only partly true!

Monty Lasovsky

Monty Lasovsky · 4 minutes ago
What i find amazing is AIPACS agreement with Obama after his speech at the convention..
It boggles the mind that after the "Peace in our Time" statement from Obama that the consensus is that we should give the "mutually agreed" land swop's a chance. The Palestinians are laughing all the way to East Jerusalem, Samaria and Hebron and Gaza thinking that at last they will have their way.
With the Palestinians determination to destroy Israel and never to recognize it, how is it possible to negotiate with them? A non militariised Palestinian state will never be accepted by the Palestinians.
If anyone watched Obama's reception in Dublin last evening and the multitudes that were there to listen to him, one wonders how you defend against such rhetoric and popularism
in the case of little Israel trying to negotiate their own demise.
Trusting Obama, as the AIPAC meeting seemed to convey they do, will lead to the demise of Israel. I don't believe the Israelis are that naive as to accept at face value the AIPAC opinion in the belief that anyone can talk us into "assisted suicide" by bending over backwards to try and appease the most articulate president of all time. The American Red Indians summed up the presidents speech when they said, "White man speak with forked tongue" only in this case this only partly true!..

Deendid

The Three No's led to the solidification of the policy of settlements in all parts of the West Bank and Gaza. Today, everyone has forgotten the Three No's–assuming they had ever heard of them in the first place. Vehicle signs